Skip to content
Permalink
Branch: master
Find file Copy path
Find file Copy path
Fetching contributors…
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
8549 lines (8548 sloc) 555 KB
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<hansard xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.1" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<session.header>
<date>1912-12-04</date>
<parliament.no>4</parliament.no>
<session.no>3</session.no>
<period.no>0</period.no>
<chamber>REPS</chamber>
<page.no>6361</page.no>
<proof>0</proof>
</session.header>
<chamber.xscript>
<para class="block">House of Representatives </para>
<business.start>
<day.start>1912-12-04</day.start>
<para>
<inline font-weight="bold">Mr.</inline>Speaker took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers. </para>
</business.start>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>6361</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>SUGAR COMMISSION&#39;S REPORT</title>
<page.no>6361</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6361</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KHE</name.id>
<electorate>CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HIGGS, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr HIGGS</name>
</talker>
<para>- Can the Prime Minister -say how a certain Sydney newspaper has been able to obtain the whole, or a part, of the report of the Sugar Commission before that report has been laid on the table of this House? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6361</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4N</name.id>
<electorate>WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role>Prime Minister</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FISHER, Andrew</name>
<name role="display">Mr FISHER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I believe that the newspaper referred to got the report before I received it </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6361</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JWG</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FOWLER, James</name>
<name role="display">Mr Fowler</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is a scandalous state of affairs. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6361</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4N</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FISHER, Andrew</name>
<name role="display">Mr FISHER</name>
</talker>
<para>- If the statements made are correct, and the newspaper got it early enough to be able to publish it the same afternoon, it must have got it before I did, because I did not receive my official Copy until about 1 o&#39;clock. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6361</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K99</name.id>
<electorate>LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>FT; ANTI-SOC from 1906; LP from 1910; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">JOHNSON, Elliot</name>
<name role="display">Mr W ELLIOT JOHNSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- Some one -must have betrayed a confidence. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6361</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4N</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FISHER, Andrew</name>
<name role="display">Mr FISHER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I can say nothing as -to how the report got into the newspaper. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6361</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JWG</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FOWLER, James</name>
<name role="display">Mr Fowler</name>
</talker>
<para>- Apparently it got to -only one newspaper. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6361</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4N</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FISHER, Andrew</name>
<name role="display">Mr FISHER</name>
</talker>
<para>- There is some dishonorable person in a responsible position. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6361</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JWG</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FOWLER, James</name>
<name role="display">Mr Fowler</name>
</talker>
<para>- The Minister should -make a strict inquiry. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6361</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4N</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FISHER, Andrew</name>
<name role="display">Mr FISHER</name>
</talker>
<para>- If this person can be discovered, he will be discovered, and when discovered his name will be made known to the public ; more I cannot say. No community can protect itself against traitors, and no organization is secure against unfaithfulness. We can only reveal to the -public when we discover them the names -of those responsible. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6361</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009MD</name.id>
<electorate>BALLAARAT, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DEAKIN, Alfred</name>
<name role="display">Mr DEAKIN</name>
</talker>
<para>- I understand that there is a minority, as well as a majority, report. </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6361</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4N</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FISHER, Andrew</name>
<name role="display">Mr FISHER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Both will be laid on the table immediately. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6361</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009MD</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DEAKIN, Alfred</name>
<name role="display">Mr DEAKIN</name>
</talker>
<para>- Were both published in the Sydney newspaper referred to? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6361</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4N</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FISHER, Andrew</name>
<name role="display">Mr FISHER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I believe bo. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6361</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JNV</name.id>
<electorate>HERBERT, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BAMFORD, Frederick</name>
<name role="display">Mr BAMFORD</name>
</talker>
<para>- I wish to know whether it is intended to have printed more than the usual number of copies of the report - 950? Does the Minister intend to have any additional number printed? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6361</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KWL</name.id>
<electorate>YARRA, VICTORIA</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role>Minister for Trade and Customs</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TUDOR, Frank</name>
<name role="display">Mr TUDOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am informed by the Clerk of the House that 1,250 copies are being printed, and I understand that about 200 are now available for distribution to honorable members. I arranged for that yesterday with the Government Printer. Other copies will be available within a day or two, and if there is- a great demand for copies you, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Speaker,</inline> will no doubt make arrangements for the printing .of an additional number. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>PAPERS</title>
<page.no>6361</page.no>
<type>papers</type>
</debateinfo>
<para>MINISTERS laid upon the table tha following papers : - </para>
<quote>
<para>High Commissioner - Report of, on his visit to Canada and the United States of America. </para>
<para>Sitmar Industry - Report of the Royal Commission. </para>
</quote>
<para>Ordered to be printed. </para>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>6361</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>BUSINESS OF SESSION</title>
<page.no>6361</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6361</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009MD</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DEAKIN, Alfred</name>
<name role="display">Mr DEAKIN</name>
</talker>
<para>- In view of a notice of motion just given by the Prime Minister, I ask the right honorable gentleman if he will take an early opportunity to inform us of the business to be brought forward in the remaining weeks of the session,, so that we may address ourselves, as far as possible, to the necessities of the case, and be in a position to consider whether his proposal .is called for? &#39; </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6361</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4N</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>ALP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FISHER, Andrew</name>
<name role="display">Mr FISHER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Yes. It is not intended to press the &#39; -motion until such a statement has been made. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>6361</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>ELECTORAL REGISTRARS&#39; CONFERENCE</title>
<page.no>6361</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6361</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KCP</name.id>
<electorate>BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GORDON, David</name>
<name role="display">Mr GORDON</name>
</talker>
<para>- Some weeks ago, a deputation, representing the Electoral Registrars of the Commonwealth, waited on the Minister of Home Affairs. Has the honorable gentleman come to a decision on the matters brought before hia. by the deputation? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6362</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K5D</name.id>
<electorate>DARWIN, TASMANIA</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role>Minister for Home Affairs</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">O&#39;MALLEY, King</name>
<name role="display">Mr KING O&#39;MALLEY</name>
</talker>
<para>- The matters are still in a state of incubation. No feathers arc on the birds yet. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>6362</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>POSTMASTER-GENERAL&#39;S DEPARTMENT</title>
<page.no>6362</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<para>Vaucluse Telephone Exchange - Tasmanian Mail Service</para>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6362</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEA</name.id>
<electorate>WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KELLY, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr KELLY</name>
</talker>
<para>- Will the PostmasterGeneral take into consideration the application of the automatic&#39; telephone system to Watson&#39;s Bay, to remove the telephonic difficulties under which the municipality of Vaucluse is now labouring? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6362</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JX9</name.id>
<electorate>KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role>Postmaster-General</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FRAZER, Charles</name>
<name role="display">Mr FRAZER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am acquainted with the necessities of the locality referred to, and, in the event of automatic telephone exchanges being introduced into Sydney, it, no doubt, will be one of the centres attended to. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6362</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JMG</name.id>
<electorate>WILMOT, TASMANIA</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ATKINSON, Llewelyn</name>
<name role="display">Mr ATKINSON</name>
</talker>
<para>- Can the PostmasterGeneral give me an idea as to when the correspondence between his Department and the steam-ship companies which have the contract for the mail service to Tasmania will be made available, in accordance with the promise he made me some time ago. </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6362</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JX9</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FRAZER, Charles</name>
<name role="display">Mr FRAZER</name>
</talker>
<para>- It is available now. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>6362</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>DEFENCE DEPARTMENT</title>
<page.no>6362</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<para>Cadets : Harness Factory</para>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6362</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KYV</name.id>
<electorate>SOUTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">RILEY, Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr RILEY</name>
</talker>
<para>- When is the Minister representing the Minister of Defence likely to give me a reply with reference to the charging of legal expenses in the case of certain cadets who were fined for nonattendance at drill, and which is now overdue a fortnight? </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6362</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZG</name.id>
<electorate>ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role>Minister (without portfolio)</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ROBERTS, Ernest</name>
<name role="display">Mr ROBERTS</name>
</talker>
<para>- The information has not yet come to hand, although I know that the Minister is doing his best to get it. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6362</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KELLY, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr KELLY</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the Minister representing the Minister of Defence, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>What is the Commonwealth Harness Fac tory&#39;s cost price per bell tent for bell tents made to the order of the Defence Department? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>What is the price per bell tent quoted by Messrs. Thomas Evans and Co., Bourke-street, Melbourne ? </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>How many holidays are the employes of the Harness Factory entitled to? </para>
</item>
<item label="4.">
<para>Did the Minister grant a holiday on full pay to enable employes to attend the saddlers&#39; picnic ? </para>
</item>
<item label="5.">
<para>Who applied for the said holiday? </para>
</item>
<item label="6.">
<para>What percentage of the employes indorsed the application? </para>
</item>
<item label="7.">
<para>What is the average number of holidays each employe has received since the Factory opened ? </para>
</item>
<item label="8.">
<para>Did the Minister sanction the altering of pay-day from twice a month to every alternate Friday, and why ? </para>
</item>
<item label="9.">
<para>Were the employes being overpaid when they were paid twice monthly? If so, how much, and for what reason? </para>
</item>
</list>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6362</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZG</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ROBERTS, Ernest</name>
<name role="display">Mr ROBERTS</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable gentleman has asked for something in the nature of a return. I am afraid that it will be Wednesday of next week, at the earliest, before he can possibly have it. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para>LAND TAX : <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. E.</inline> BYRNE. </para>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6362</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JWY</name.id>
<electorate>RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CHANTER, John</name>
<name role="display">Mr CHANTER</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the Treasurer, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>Referring to question No. 8, asked of the Minister on Thursday, 28th November, by the honorable member for Riverina, to which the Minister later stated, in reply, that the <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Byrne</inline> alluded to was not identical with the organiser of the Farmers and Settlers Association, and that partisanship would be regarded as a disqualification for the position of check land-valuer - </para>
</quote>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>Is he aware that the <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Edward</inline> Byrne appointed is not identical with the <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Byrne</inline> referred to by the Deputy Land Tax Commissioner in Sydney as being: engaged in active organizing work? </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>Is he aware that the <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Edward</inline> Byrne who has been appointed check land-valuer for Riverina is also a member of, and has been actively organising for, the Farmers and Settlers Association in the Temora district for the past three months, and that he is secretary to the Liberal Party Association at German ton? </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>Does he not consider that holding and having held those positions, and his close sympathetic association with those landowners who are called upon to pay the Federal Land Tax, class him as a partisan, and render it unadvisable that he should continue to hold the position of check-valuer ? </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6362</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4N</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>ALP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FISHER, Andrew</name>
<name role="display">Mr FISHER</name>
</talker>
<para>- The answers to the honorable member&#39;s questions are : - </para>
</talk.start>
<list type="decimal-dotted">
<item label="1.">
<para>Yes. </para>
</item>
<item label="2.">
<para>It has been ascertained that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Byrnewas</inline> engaged on organizing work under the Farmers and Settlers Association in Junee district for about one month, but his engagement in that capacity terminated before his appointment as valuer. He is not, nor -was he when he was appointed valuer, the secretary of the Liberal Party Association at Germanton. </para>
</item>
<item label="3.">
<para>The Department cannot assume thata valuer&#39;s political views will cause him to act dishonestly as a valuer. If his work showed bias, either for or against a land-owner, his employment would immediately cease. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Byrne</inline> is believed to have good qualifications as a valuer, based upon his experience in shire valuations and as a practical farmer. He satisfactorily answered the practical test questions of the Department, and is highly recommended by the district inspector of the Savings Bank and others. </para>
</item>
</list>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>6363</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>AGE: INCREASED PROTECTION</title>
<page.no>6363</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6363</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KELLY, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr KELLY</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the Minister of Trade and Customs, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>Has he read anything in the <inline font-style="italic">Age</inline> newspaper, or received any communication from its proprietors, urging increased protection for the following Australian manufactures : - Printing paper known as newspaper, printers&#39; ink, roller composition, printers&#39; type, printing machines? </para>
</quote>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6363</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KWL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>ALP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TUDOR, Frank</name>
<name role="display">Mr TUDOR</name>
</talker>
<para>- No. </para>
</talk.start>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>QUESTION</title>
<page.no>6363</page.no>
<type>Questions</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>FEDERAL TERRITORY</title>
<page.no>6363</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6363</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009MD</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DEAKIN, Alfred</name>
<name role="display">Mr DEAKIN</name>
</talker>
<para>asked the Ministerof Home Affairs, <inline font-style="italic">upon notice -</inline></para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>Is the Federal Territory, including the site for the future Capital, under any - and if so, what - law relating to local option and the granting of licences for the sale of intoxicants? </para>
</quote>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6363</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>K5D</name.id>
<electorate />
<party>ALP</party>
<role />
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">O&#39;MALLEY, King</name>
<name role="display">Mr KING O&#39;MALLEY</name>
</talker>
<para>- The answer to the honorable member&#39;s question is as follows&#39;: - </para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>With regard to local option, it is held that the New South Wales laws on the subject are no longer operative within the Federal Territory. Commonwealth provision for the taking of a local option poll has not yet been made. The granting of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors is governed by Ordinance No. 2 of1911, relating to the provisional government of the Territory of the Seat of Government, section 6 of which provides as follows : - &#34; No licence to sell intoxicating liquor in the Territory shall be granted ; and no such licence existing at the commencement of this Ordinance shall be removed to other premises. Provided that this section shall not prevent any publican&#39;s licence, in existence at the commencement of this Ordinance, being renewed from time to time for the same premises.&#34; </para>
</quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.1>
</debate>
<debate>
<debateinfo>
<title>CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (CORPORATIONS) BILL</title>
<page.no>6363</page.no>
<type>bill</type>
</debateinfo>
<subdebate.1>
<subdebateinfo>
<title>Second Reading</title>
<page.no>6363</page.no>
</subdebateinfo>
<para>Debate resumed from 3rd December (vide page 6313), on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Hughes-</inline></para>
<quote>
<para class="block">That this Bill be now read a second time. </para>
</quote>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6363</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEA</name.id>
<electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KELLY, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr KELLY</name>
</talker>
<para>.- There are a few remarks with regard to this Bill which I could not well include in my previous speech. It proposes to take powers in regard to the control of corporations, not only on their formation and their dissolution which might be a reasonable thing to ask, but also throughout their existence. There are, however, a few types of corporation which are to be excluded. I wish to suggest to honorable members opposite that, by making these exclusions, they have shown that they do not think that there is much claim with regard to the general control of organizations throughout their continued existence. </para>
</talk.start>
<para class="block">Apart, altogether, from the very strong point put before the House yesterday by the honorable member for Darling Downs - that should this amendment pass there will be within the boundaries of a State one law governing corporations in the transaction of their ordinary business, and another law governing business individuals, and that the resulting confusion will be very serious - we have the introduction of a number of words in the &#34; exception &#34; paragraph, which will be productive of still further confusion, and are only valuable as giving a line to the fact that the Labour party imagine that these proposals will not be popular with the persons who would be expected to operate under them. </para>
<list type="loweralpha">
<item label="(b)">
<para>corporations formed under the law of a State, including their dissolution, regulation, and control ; but not including municipal or governmental coporations </para>
</item>
</list>
<para class="block">The following are the words I wishto direct attention to - or any corporation formed solely for religious, charitable, scientific, &#39; or artistic purposes, and not for the acquisition of gain by the corporation or its members. </para>
<para class="block">I defy honorable members opposite to say what would not be covered by that provision, provided that arrangements are made to meet it. Take, for instance, a corporation formed &#34; not for the acquisition of gain by the corporation or its members,&#34; but &#34;for artistic purposes.&#34; I take it that an &#34; art union &#34; will be exempt under the Bill, and the honorable member for East Sydney will, I think, agree with me in that. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6363</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WEST, John Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr West</name>
</talker>
<para>- No; do not put words into my mouth. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6363</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Order ! </para>
</talk.start>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6363</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KELLY, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr KELLY</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am trying, sir, to get light on this subject. I am seeking to find out what sort of corporations would be included in paragraph <inline font-style="italic">b</inline> of clause 2. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6363</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WEST, John Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr West</name>
</talker>
<para>- Fish somewhere else. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6363</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KELLY, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr KELLY</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable member for East Sydney will not help me, sir, but I really think that this provision will apply, and is intended to apply to art unions, which, I assume, are covered by the phrase &#34;artistic purposes.&#34; Art unions are occasionally rather artistic enterprises. I hold in my hand a statement of how the art unions which my honorable friends opposite run-through other hands, of course - for the benefit of their funds. I have here a few extracts from the balancesheet of a recent art union, in which no less than&#163;13,837 3s. was collected from the general public. Out of that sum, only &#163;1,563 was distributed in prizes. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6364</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JZF</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FULLER, George</name>
<name role="display">Mr Fuller</name>
</talker>
<para>-Where did the rest go? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6364</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KELLY, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr KELLY</name>
</talker>
<para>- Some of it went to provide spurs for the distinterested altruism of those who ran the art union. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6364</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Order ! The honorable member must see that that question has no relevance to the Bill. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6364</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KELLY, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr KELLY</name>
</talker>
<para>- With the utmost deference, I fail to see how it can be held that this Bill does not cover art unions. I think I am justified in advancing reasons why certain words in clause 2 should be struck out. I would remind you, sir, that in connexion with another Bill the iniquity of certain trusts was held to justify the discussion of their operations in this Chamber. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6364</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Order ! Will the honorable member confine himself to the question before the Chair? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6364</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KELLY, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr KELLY</name>
</talker>
<para>- This is a Bill which provides for certain exemptions from the operation of the Commonwealth law in respect of corporations. Those exemptions include &#34; Municipal or governmental corporations, or any corporation formed solely for religious, charitable, scientific, or artistic purposes.&#34; Here was an art union which was a fraud upon the public. I say that a fraud upon the public ought not to be exempted from the operation of Commonwealth legislation. But if you, sir, rule that I am not permitted to discuss a fraud upon the public- </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6364</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Order ! I have asked the honorable member several times not to pursue the course which he is now following. It is a gross reflection upon the Chair. I have never ruled that the honorable member is not entitled to discuss a fraud upon the public, and he knows that perfectly well. He ought not to reflect on the Chair in the way that he has repeatedly done. I regret to be obliged to remind him of the fact, but he must not repeat the offence. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6364</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KELLY, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr KELLY</name>
</talker>
<para>- I take it that I am permitted to refer to this art union? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6364</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable member must not refer to it in detail. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6364</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KELLY, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr KELLY</name>
</talker>
<para>- I merely wish to point out that there ought to be no exemption from the operation of the Commonwealth law in cases of this kind. Under the legislation proposed, it may be found impossible for art unions to pay these heavy fees to those who run them- </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6364</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable member is now discussing a matter which is entirely foreign to the Bill. I must again ask him not to do so. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6364</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4S</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">COOK, Joseph</name>
<name role="display">Mr Joseph Cook</name>
</talker>
<para>- I rise to a point of order. I really do not understand your&#34; ruling, sir. Many honorable members believe that these lotteries are a pernicious form of gambling, and that consequently they ought to come under the control of the corporation power, which, under this Bill, it is proposed to vest in the Commonwealth. Inasmuch, however, as in this Bill they are specifically excluded from the operation of Commonwealth legislation,I submit that the honorable member for Wentworth is justified in arguing that they ought to be brought within the scope of such legislation. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6364</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- The whole point is that the honorable member for Wentworth wishes to discuss in detail a matter which is entirely foreign to the Bill. Under the pretence of dealing with corporations, he has selected a particular organization or lottery, or whatever he may choose to call it, which he proposes to debate in detail. If I were to permit him to do that, I can conceive of another honorable member rising to deny what he has said, and of a discussion ensuing which would practically have no limit, while the proposed amendment of the Constitution in respect of corporations would be altogether lost sight of. The honorable member must not follow that course.I took no exception to a general reference by him to an art union ; but if I permitted!&#39; him to discuss that matter in detail, there would be no limit to the debate. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6364</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KELLY, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr KELLY</name>
</talker>
<para>- I bow to your ruling, sir. But the deliberate exclusion of this particular form of art union is, I think, a. matter of utmost importance. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6364</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009MD</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DEAKIN, Alfred</name>
<name role="display">Mr Deakin</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable member can discuss the question in Committee. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6364</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">KELLY, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr KELLY</name>
</talker>
<para>- Yes ; and, therefore, L shall decline to address myself further lathe Bill in this House. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6364</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009MD</name.id>
<electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DEAKIN, Alfred</name>
<name role="display">Mr DEAKIN</name>
</talker>
<para>.- It may be as well for me to state that members of the Opposition, desiring to economize time as far as possible, and to interpose no unnecessary delay in the passing of these Bills, will, in all probability, not. think it necessary to move the series of amendments which they moved on a prior. occasion. But it must be understood that to-day we adopt exactly the same attitude in regard to these proposals that we adopted then. The amendments of which I have spoken, taken together, express. broadly not only what was, but what is the view of the Opposition. </para>
</talk.start>
<para>As honorable members will recollecct, ourformer amendments sought to omit from this particular measure all the denning words of paragraph <inline font-style="italic">a</inline> of clause 2 excepting the words &#34;the creation, dissolution.&#34; The creation and the dissolution of corporations we think is essential, on the merits of the case, to equip the Commonwealth for dealing with&#39; corporations. We see the best of reasons for desiring to establish an Australian law controlling corporations which will be effective. This will accomplish by far the larger portion of the ends intended to be achieved by the larger proposal which is now before us. The additional power sought by the Government would saddle this Parliament with responsibility for the framing of laws for the regulation and control of corporations, without restriction as to their character, their purpose, their dimensions, or their importance. This would not only involve most intricate legislative provisions, but would bring the legislation of the Commonwealth into continuous and direct conflict with the legislation of the same character still permissible on the part of the several States. </para>
<para>On the last occasion, and recently during the present debate, special attention has been called to the fact that His Honor <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Justice</inline> Higgins, speaking from the Bench with authority expressly ridiculed any attempt at the &#34; regulation and control &#34; of corporations in the various States. His express censures covered the very matters which are sought to be included by the Government, and which were sought to be excluded by us, those relating to the regulation and control of corporations in the various States. When a lawyer of his experience, a Judge of his eminence, felt called upon to speak so strongly from the Bench in condemnation of this proposition on account of the unending confusion to which it is certain to give rise, this House received a warning which it should take into the most serious consideration. We cannot question the motives from which His Honor spoke. There can be no suspicion that he had any possible motive other than a desire for the well-being of this community, and the maintenance of a Commonwealth law in dignity and effectiveness. </para>
<para>Assuredly the States should be given no justification for such a charge of trespass against the Commonwealth laws as would be involved if the measures which may be various in the several States, were at one point and another, overridden by Commonwealth legislation. A proposition like this is, literally speaking, meat and drink to members of the legal profession. The more complex our laws, and the more uncertain the character of the legislation we pass dealing generally with wholly different corporations, the more boundless the opportunities afforded for legitimate legal differences of opinion; which can only be settled, if they can be definitely settled there, by appeals to the Courts. But what of the public? I did not hear on the last occasion, when a similar measure was before the House, nor have I heard during this debate, any justification for such a wanton incursion into a territory not of the highest importance, and not essentially Federal in character. Exceptions may, of course, be cited, but they would be so few that they would in no sense disprove that statement. Here, therefore, we go astray, without gain to the Commonwealth, but, on the contrary, with the addition of new burdens upon us and upon all the States. Instead of confining our attention to the foundation of corporations, and the control of their cessation of being - not content with ruling the beginning and ending of all corporations from an Australian point of view - we are asked to hinder our own work and damage the success of our legislation by introducing innumerable administrative matters, the bulk of which must be relatively trivial by comparison. Having repeated this protest&#34; once more and explicitly, I very much regret that the Government on review of the situation, and after the reasonable consideration which they should have given to this portion of their proposals, have not seen fit to place this particular measure more in line with Commonwealth legislation, restricting it to those conditions which are, so far as we are concerned, national. It should have been restricted to a general and effective control of corporations during their creation and dissolution. We ought to leave to the State Parliaments, what it is not our province to deal with, the whole series of confused and intricate business relationships arising out of the everyday management of six often differing State laws established under one dominating law of the Commonwealth. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6365</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WEST, John Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr West</name>
</talker>
<para>- Then the honorable gentleman would oppose the passing of a Companies Act for the whole of Australia? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6366</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009MD</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DEAKIN, Alfred</name>
<name role="display">Mr DEAKIN</name>
</talker>
<para>- No. I have said that if we pass a measure dealing with the creation and dissolution of corporations retaining the control, in the first instance, of the creation of such institutions, and in the second place, of the circumstances under which they should cease to be, we should be doing work which the Commonwealth Parliament is qualified to do, and which only the Commonwealth Parliament can do. If we enter into subsidiary fields of legislation on the subject, we shall intrude upon areas for which the State Parliaments are better qualified, for which we have many disqualifications and practically no qualifications, while they have many qualifications and few disqualifications. That would be a natural and reasonable division of the work, saving the Commonwealth, and the bodies liable to be affected, expense, difficulty, and delay, which, under the measure submitted by the Government, it seems tome we shall be imposing upon both, through a mere abstract ambition to deal with the institutions completely, merely because they are in our midst. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6366</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JSC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BRENNAN, Frank</name>
<name role="display">Mr Brennan</name>
</talker>
<para>- Why deal with their creation and dissolution any more than with their regulation and control? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6366</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009MD</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DEAKIN, Alfred</name>
<name role="display">Mr DEAKIN</name>
</talker>
<para>- Because the regulation and control of corporations must require us to provide for the whole of the details and minutiae connected with their daily working, including minor matters, which there is no reason for dealing with in the same way throughout Australia. I repeat that the attitude of the Opposition and their desires are still faithfully represented by the amendments they moved on the last occasion when a similar measure was before the House. This is the same House, composed of the same members, the same, parties confront each other ; and we hold that there is little to be gained, though a good deal of time might be lost, in again going over the ground that was traversed on the former occasion. It is sufficient to say that the amendments previously moved represent the general attitude of the party on this side. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6366</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4N</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FISHER, Andrew</name>
<name role="display">Mr Fisher</name>
</talker>
<para>- What is the objection? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6366</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009MD</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DEAKIN, Alfred</name>
<name role="display">Mr DEAKIN</name>
</talker>
<para>- The objection is to the inclusion in this measure of the regulation and control of corporations once they are constituted, and when it is not sought to dissolve them ; our plea being that the work of the Commonwealth Parliament in connexion with this matter is to safeguard the creation of corporations, and to provide for the conditions under which they cease to be, leaving all the details and minutae of their general operations, as they have hitherto been, in the hands of the State Parliaments. By the adoption of this course, we shall be able to exercise an effective control and supervision over all corporations, while they would continue their operations generally under that sanction, but more particularly under the legislation of the different States. Speaking generally, 1 have not heard the legislation of the States in this regard seriously impugned. No doubt it is open to improve ment, as all legislation is. Having made it clear that the attitude of the Opposition to these proposals as a whole is precisely the same as it was on the last occasion when they were submitted, that we are in favour of the creation and dissolution of corporations by the Commonwealth, we have submitted a fair alternative solution of this question. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6366</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4N</name.id>
<electorate>Wide Bay</electorate>
<party>ALP</party>
<role>Prime Minister and Treasurer</role>
<in.gov>1</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FISHER, Andrew</name>
<name role="display">Mr FISHER</name>
</talker>
<para>. - I am sure that we have listened with pleasure to the Leader of the Opposition. From his concluding remarks I gather that while he thinks this is a very useful power for the Commonwealth Parliament to possess, he considers it slightly in excess of that which is necessary. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6366</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JWO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CATTS, James</name>
<name role="display">Mr J H Catts</name>
</talker>
<para>- The Leader of the Opposition nods his assent. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6366</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009MD</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DEAKIN, Alfred</name>
<name role="display">Mr Deakin</name>
</talker>
<para>- I do nothing of the kind. I was merely conveying by my nod the fact that I was following the Prime Minister. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6366</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4N</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FISHER, Andrew</name>
<name role="display">Mr FISHER</name>
</talker>
<para>- It is an old axiom that uncertain law is no law. We need to make our laws as secure and certain as the Constitution will allow. If there is one branch&#39; of legislation that ought to be uniform throughout Australia it is that relating to companies. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6366</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009MD</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DEAKIN, Alfred</name>
<name role="display">Mr Deakin</name>
</talker>
<para>- In its foundation. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6366</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4N</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FISHER, Andrew</name>
<name role="display">Mr FISHER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Both in its foundation and its ramifications. It is of no value to the poor man who has a little to invest to be told &#34;You are secure up to a certain point, but beyond that we can give you no security.&#34; A man should know when he is making an investment that he is investing with a company working under a uniform law for the whole Commonwealth, and that no corporation, whether well or badly managed, can depart from that law without suffering the consequences. The whole trouble in relation to these proposals is that there has entered the minds of honorable members opposite, and some of the people outside, the idea that this is a Parliament that cannot be trusted. In my opinion, such an idea is erroneous. I believe that the electors will take care to elect to this Parliament, at each succeeding election, men competent to express the views of the majority of the people, and that they will from time to time correct any error. In connexion with the exercise of this power over corporations we should be just as capable of acting fairly between the States, and of protecting the general interests of the people, as are the Minister of Trade and Customs and the Minister of Defence, in the administration of their respective Departments. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6367</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009MD</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DEAKIN, Alfred</name>
<name role="display">Mr Deakin</name>
</talker>
<para>- A very different problem indeed. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6367</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4N</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FISHER, Andrew</name>
<name role="display">Mr FISHER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I need not go into particulars, but the Leader of the Opposition knows that the Minister of Trade and Customs, if he chose to exercise the power he possesses, could prescribe to-morrow that no man should work in a ship&#39;s hold unless he wore a dress suit and white kid gloves. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6367</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009MD</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DEAKIN, Alfred</name>
<name role="display">Mr Deakin</name>
</talker>
<para>- But any regulation made by the Minister would apply to the whole of Australia. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6367</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4N</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FISHER, Andrew</name>
<name role="display">Mr FISHER</name>
</talker>
<para>- The point I wish to make is that, although the Minister has power to direct that a man shall not &#34;work in the hold of a ship unless he wears a dress suit and white kid gloves, he does not think of exercising that power. If he did, he would not remain long in office. And so with the exercise of this power over corporations for which we ask. It is a power to protect, and not to abuse. No Government or individual member of Parliament could gain any advantage by violating or straining the law to the detriment of the public interest. Any Government that did so would certainly suffer. My own opinion is that the States would not be prejudicially affected even if these powers were granted to us in their entirety. The powers asked for are not in excess of the necessities of the situation, and the granting of them to the Federal Parliament has already been too long delayed. I believe that there is a majority of the people in favour of the grant of this particular power to the Commonwealth, and I trust that the Bill now before us will not be in any way modified. Indeed, I was hopeful that it would be unanimously agreed to. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6367</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KXP</name.id>
<electorate>Echuca</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PALMER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Mr PALMER</name>
</talker>
<para>.- I hold the view that we should not take powers from the States until things in the realm of Federal politics have found their true level. The time has not yet arrived foi graining vo the Commonwealth Parliament such a power as that for which this Bill provides. The point that I wish to emphasize is that, if this Bill be passed and indorsed by the people, power will be given this Parliament to control even corporations formed under the law of a State. So great is the power which we propose to take that, even in regard to corporations brought into existence under the <inline font-style="italic">agis</inline> of State laws, we shall be able to dissolve, regulate, and control them. That is a grave power for this Parliament to assume, and, if granted, will, I am sure, lead to friction between trie States and- the Commonwealth, and pave the way to a great deal of litigation. Several exemptions are embodied in the Bill, including the proviso that it shall not apply to corporations formed &#34;not for the acquisition of gain by the corporation or its members.&#34; I should like the Altorney General to state whether that exemption means that trade unions having a corporate existence are not to be brought under the control of the Federal Parliament ? </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6367</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L1P</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WISE, George</name>
<name role="display">Mr Wise</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable member will find the same words in the Victorian Companies Act. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6367</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KXP</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PALMER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Mr PALMER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I think that I am entitled to ask the Attorney-General to answer my question. I know that he can decline to do so, and that is practically the attitude which he is taking up. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6367</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZG</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ROBERTS, Ernest</name>
<name role="display">Mr Roberts</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is not fair. The honorable member knows that the AttorneyGeneral has not heard what he has said. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6367</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KXP</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PALMER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Mr PALMER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I know that the AttorneyGeneral sometimes does not hear what is said. It seems to me, however, that if corporations, are to be brought under the control and regulation of the Federal Parliament, trade union corporations should also be brought under our regulation and control. I should like some one on the Ministerial side of the House to give me a definite answer to my question. Ostensibly, trade unions are not corporations for the acquisition, of gain, but actually they are. Trade union corporations are not formed to make gains in the way that a commercial concern does, but they have a political basis, and work largely for political ends, and to that extent, for gain. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6368</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZG</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ROBERTS, Ernest</name>
<name role="display">Mr Roberts</name>
</talker>
<para>- If the trade unions are included in any of these Bills, will the honorable member vote for them? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6368</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KXP</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PALMER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Mr PALMER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I want to know from the Ministerial side whether such power will be covered by this Bill ? Does the measure give the Federal Government power to take control over Labour organizations, in view of the fact that the Bill states that companies are not included? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6368</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L1P</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WISE, George</name>
<name role="display">Mr Wise</name>
</talker>
<para>- The Bill does not say that. Read it. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6368</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KXP</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PALMER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Mr PALMER</name>
</talker>
<para>- It says- </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<quote>
<para class="block">Corporations formed under the law of a State, including their dissolution, regulation, and control, but not including municipal or governmental corporations, or any corporation formed solely for religious, charitable, scientific, or artistic purposes, and not for the acquisition of gain. </para>
</quote>
<para class="block">That would exclude companies. </para>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6368</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L1P</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WISE, George</name>
<name role="display">Mr Wise</name>
</talker>
<para>- No, it would not. It expressly says that if the corporations are for the acquisition of gain, they are not excluded. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6368</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KXP</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PALMER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Mr PALMER</name>
</talker>
<para>- The point is that, this power being granted to the Federal Government, it will be compelled to inquire whether certain organizations are run for the purpose of gain. I maintain that trade unions are run for the purposes of gain - not solely for monetary gain, but&#34; for the purpose of gaining what their members believe to be advantageous to themselves. I venture to say that there are no corporations in the Commonwealth which have a more important bearing upon all -the commercial, manufacturing, and producing interests than the Labour corporations. They may be called unions, or whatever honorable members like, but they are corporations ; and we certainly ought to be in a position to know that corporations having such a dominating influence will be subject to the same legal control and authority as are any other corporations. It is not exactly a party question, because the Government in power today will not be in power to-morrow. There are bound to be changes in the political circumstances. The &#34;ins&#34; of to-day are the &#34; outs &#34; of to-morrow. We are legislating for the control of certain organizations until the law is amended. I want to make quite sure whether, if we obtain the sanction of the people to transfer these powers to control corporations established under the laws of the States, we shall have power to control, for instance, Wages Boards ? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6368</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L1P</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WISE, George</name>
<name role="display">Mr Wise</name>
</talker>
<para>- Are they corporations ? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6368</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KXP</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PALMER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Mr PALMER</name>
</talker>
<para>- My honorable friend speaks as a lawyer. Whether Wages Boards are corporations in the legal sense of the term, I am not prepared to say. But trade unions are undoubtedly corporation* in intent, if not in the legal sense. They are associations of people who have joined together for their own advantage, though not always for the advantage of others. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6368</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KWL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TUDOR, Frank</name>
<name role="display">Mr Tudor</name>
</talker>
<para>- Like the Millers&#39; Combine. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6368</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KXP</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PALMER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Mr PALMER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I do not know why the honorable member should be always introducing the&#39; Millers&#39; Combine, because 1 have nothing to do with it. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6368</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KWL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TUDOR, Frank</name>
<name role="display">Mr Tudor</name>
</talker>
<para>- This is the first time I have mentioned it. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6368</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KXP</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PALMER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Mr PALMER</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable member has mentioned the subject offensively more than once. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6368</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KEV</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FENTON, James</name>
<name role="display">Mr Fenton</name>
</talker>
<para>- I will quote the rules of the Combine to-morrow? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6368</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KXP</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">PALMER, Albert</name>
<name role="display">Mr PALMER</name>
</talker>
<para>- If they are of interest. I hope the honorable member will make the information available to the whole House. We are taking power under this Bill, if the people agree to it, to override the laws of the States, under which certain corporations may have been formed. It is, to my mind, an extremely dangerous precedent for us to establish. But if we are to have control over any corporations at all, we ought certainly to have a larger control over the corporations in which the members of trade unions are operating. The Attorney-General does not hear what I am saying. That is very inconvenient from some points of view. But other Ministers have heard, and I should like to know from them how far this Bill goes in regard to bringing trade unions under the purview of the Federal law. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6368</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L0I</name.id>
<electorate>North Sydney</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">RYRIE, Granville</name>
<name role="display">Mr RYRIE</name>
</talker>
<para>. - I could quite understand the Government asking for power to deal with corporations whose ramifications extended beyond more than one State if they had not that power already. But I believe that they have it, and, therefore, I wonder at their asking for it. But I object to their asking for power to deal with all corporations. I do not know whether I am correct in my surmise, but I take it that there is very little difference, if any, between a corporation and a company. I believe that a corporation may be defined as a combination which is authorized under the law. A company which is registered under the law is, I take it, precisely the same as a corporation; and I certainly object to power being granted to the Federal Government to control and regulate all companies. I see no reason why companies within States should be controlled from a central authority. To do so is absolutely to carry out the principle of centralization in its very worst aspect. In my opinion, decentralization in all these matters is the policy which should be pursued in the interests of the people geneTally. How can this Parliament expect to deal satisfactorily with companies carrying on business in the smaller towns of the different States? At all events, it must be more difficult for the Federal Government to exercise properly such control &#60;than for the State Governments to do so. Control of small companies in country towns cannot be nearly so well exercised toy the Central Government as by the State Governments, and that is the reason why decentralization has been sought by the creation of local-governing bodies, even within States. The parliamentary representatives in the State Houses possess all the requisite local knowledge to enable them to attend to the interests of companies of the kind; and it is only right that those interests should be looked after in that way. It might be said, of course, that there are local representatives in this Parliament j but the two authorities are not on the same plane, members here not possessing that knowledge of local details which are always at the command of Slate members. All these proposals tend in the one direction of concentrating the control in this Government - in the direction of Unification - and I distinctly object to anything of the sort. It has been asked whether the proposed power will extend to -that most powerful corporation or combination in our midst, known as trade unionism. Such questions, however, are rather amusing, because, in my opinion, the &#34; boot will be on the other foot,&#34; and the trade unions will control this Parliament with that active outside influence which dominates the constitutional machinery. At the present time trade unionism practically controls the State Legislatures ; and so we see the New South Wales Parliament markedly influenced by the Trades Hall. I do not see what greater power the Commonwealth could have than the control of all companies and combinations, which, I take it, include all trusts and similar bodies, and any two or three men banded together for trade, and registered, would come with in this legislation. The Bill before us looks a very simple one; but I do not think that honorable members realize its scope and far-reaching effects. It means the control of the thousands of private, but registered, trading companies throughout Australia, including the wool-selling firms, the great stores, and so forth, which are nearly all limited liability companies. Whether a combination be a trust or a company, and whether it represents a monopoly or not, or whether it be inimical to the public interest or not, it will come within the Bill. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6369</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KHU</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HOWE, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Mr Howe</name>
</talker>
<para>- Does the honorable member say that a trust or a combine is a registered body? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6369</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L0I</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">RYRIE, Granville</name>
<name role="display">Mr RYRIE</name>
</talker>
<para>- No, but a company, which is registered, may be a trust or a combine. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6369</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KHU</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">HOWE, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Mr Howe</name>
</talker>
<para>- What about the trust that is not registered? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6369</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L0I</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">RYRIE, Granville</name>
<name role="display">Mr RYRIE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I admit that such a body would not come within the Bill; but all companies, whether in restraint of trade or otherwise, would be within the control of this Parliament. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6369</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JNV</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BAMFORD, Frederick</name>
<name role="display">Mr Bamford</name>
</talker>
<para>- Suppose they were, what matter? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6369</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L0I</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">RYRIE, Granville</name>
<name role="display">Mr RYRIE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I do not think it is well to give to the Commonwealth the control of all companies of which this Parliament knows nothing. Of course, I know that honorable members opposite are in favour of all trading and industrial matters being brought within the purview of this Parliament. I notice that corporations formed for religious, charitable, scientific, or artistic purposes, and not for the acquisition of gain, are excluded, although they were included in the previous proposed amendment of the Constitution, and I take it that that is because of the serious and reasonable objection? that were raised. Then, again, I see that municipal or governmental corporations are not included ; and there is no doubt that, if these amendments be carried, these institutions will very much increase in importance. If we take from the State Parliaments much&#34; of their importance and many of their functions, more work must devolve upon the municipalities and shire councils, which eventually will be entrusted with the whole of the local governing functions of the State. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6369</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L1P</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WISE, George</name>
<name role="display">Mr Wise</name>
</talker>
<para>- We are not interfering with them. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6369</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L0I</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">RYRIE, Granville</name>
<name role="display">Mr RYRIE</name>
</talker>
<para>- You are going to put more work on their shoulders, and to increase their responsibilities by taking powers from the State Parliaments. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6370</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WEST, John Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr West</name>
</talker>
<para>- We are not doing that. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6370</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L0I</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">RYRIE, Granville</name>
<name role="display">Mr RYRIE</name>
</talker>
<para>- The proposals of the Government are to take from the State Parliaments many of their powers. This Bill provides for taking from them the control, regulation, and dissolution of companies. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6370</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JSC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BRENNAN, Frank</name>
<name role="display">Mr Brennan</name>
</talker>
<para>- We have not taken away a single power. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6370</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L0I</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">RYRIE, Granville</name>
<name role="display">Mr RYRIE</name>
</talker>
<para>- The Bill provides for the vesting of powers in this Parliament should the people approve, and any powers given to us must be taken from the State Parliaments. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6370</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4Q</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr Scullin</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable member says now that we are giving the municipalities too much to do. At the last referendum he said that we were taking away everything from them. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6370</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L0I</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">RYRIE, Granville</name>
<name role="display">Mr RYRIE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am not complaining; I am merely stating the position. I say that these local governing bodies must increase daily in importance. Municipalities are excluded from the Bill because, no doubt, of the objections raised to their inclusion on the former occasion. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6370</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>F4Q</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SCULLIN, James Henry</name>
<name role="display">Mr Scullin</name>
</talker>
<para>- They were not included last time, though it was said that they were. We wish to prevent the recurrence of that misrepresentation. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6370</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L0I</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">RYRIE, Granville</name>
<name role="display">Mr RYRIE</name>
</talker>
<para>- My reading of the last proposal was that it covered the municipal and shire councils. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6370</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KNF</name.id>
<electorate>RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>LP; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MASSY-GREENE, Walter</name>
<name role="display">Mr MASSY-GREENE</name>
</talker>
<para>- So it did. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6370</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>L0I</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">RYRIE, Granville</name>
<name role="display">Mr RYRIE</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is my opinion. I wish to put on record my protest against this attempt to vest in the Federal Parliament the whole power to control, regulate, and dissolve companies. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6370</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZA</name.id>
<electorate>East Sydney</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WEST, John Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr WEST</name>
</talker>
<para>.- When addressing the House on a previous occasion, I drew attention to what I thought was the view of the people at the time when Federation was adopted. I feel confident that they thought then that under Federation they would get a companies law applying to the whole of Australia. The Leader of the Opposition admits that such a companies law is essential. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6370</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>009MD</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">DEAKIN, Alfred</name>
<name role="display">Mr Deakin</name>
</talker>
<para>- I said so on the last occasion. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6370</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WEST, John Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr WEST</name>
</talker>
<para>- On the last occasion the Opposition wished to have the issues submitted separately, so that electors of all manner of opinions could express their views on each proposal, among them that which we are now considering. Most of the members of the Chambers of Commerce and Chambers of Manufacturers in the various States have, at their annuals meetings, pointed out the disabilities which arise from the want of a universal companies law, and at the last Premiers&#39; Conference an attempt was made to arrive at an understanding which would enable this Parliament to pass such a law. No proposal put. forward at the Conference met with a better acceptance, but those who, like myself, have taken an interest in the public life of Australia for the past thirty or forty years, know that it would be impossible to pass a universal companies law through the six Upper Houses of the States. The members of those Houses are connected with companies, and would try to frame a law in the interests of the companies, and the Premiers soon saw how difficult it would be to arrive at an agreement by striving to make the State legislation uniform. In some of the States the investors are not properly protected now, while in other States there are good companies laws. It was intended when Federation took place, and thirty-nine specified powers were conferred on this Parliament, that we should be able to make laws applicable to the whole of Australia in those respects. The whole object of the Federation is to make laws on certain subjects to have effect throughout Australia. I am afraid&#39; that the honorable member for North Sydney has been looking through green spectacles, because his vision seems to be quite obscured. This measure seems to have caused a perfect nightmare amongst honorable members on the other side. Judging by their speeches, I think that they cannot get much rest. They certainly come here with very erroneous ideas. I hope I may say, without being offensive that I have never heard honorable members get so far away from the real question before the House as they have done in this matter of corporations. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6370</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Order. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6370</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WEST, John Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr WEST</name>
</talker>
<para>- The Speaker has to continually exercise his control, and rightly so, too. This Parliament was constituted for the purpose of legislating for the people of Australia, but we find that nearly every honorable member on the other side is fighting for State rights. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6370</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Order. Will the honorable member confine himself to the matter before the Chair? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6370</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WEST, John Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr WEST</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am sorry that I have transgressed, sir. I was only replying to the remarks of members of the Opposition,. -and I regret that I cannot go so far as I should like to do. I certainly think that some honorable members on the other side would be better in a State House than here ; they are not Federalists. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6371</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Order. Will the honorable member confine himself to the question ? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6371</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WEST, John Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr WEST</name>
</talker>
<para>- Am I going too far now, sir? At the last referendum there was a complaint that the issue was confused, but now the issue is made perfectly plain, and the people can give a clear vote on this question of extending the Federal control to corporations. The definition of the power in this Bill is very concise, indicating clearly that it is not intended to interfere with the control of the municipalities, which, of course, was not really intended at the previous referendum. Our opponents then knew very well that the proposed power over corporations did not apply, and was not intended to apply, to those institutions which the States themselves controlled, .because that would be offending against an essential of Democracy. So long as an institution is controlled by the people they are satisfied. The municipalities are controlled by the people, and <inline font-style="italic">so,</inline> too, are the State Governments. The Federal Parliament never intended to intefere with the control of such institutions, but now the proposed power is defined so plainly that I cannot understand the attitude of the Opposition, that is, apart from their belief that the present Government should not have any other power. That is apparently their real objection to this proposal, and to my mind it does not show much confidence in the Parliament, because no Parliament will ever go beyond the will of the people. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6371</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JWO</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">CATTS, James</name>
<name role="display">Mr J H Catts</name>
</talker>
<para>- It shows no confidence in the people. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6371</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WEST, John Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr WEST</name>
</talker>
<para>- Seeing that the Opposition have no confidence in themselves, how can they have confidence in the people? lt will be purely for the people to decide how far we should go in any direction, and what we should do. Under none of these proposals will the Parliament go any further than the people permit. No Parliament has ever done that yet, for all the powers we desire to secure to this National Parliament have been exercised by the State Parliaments. All the awful things that were depicted to the people as likely to happen if the powers were transferred to this Parliament have never happened under the exercise of them by the State Parliaments. This gloomy talk has been indulged in ever since I have been acquainted with politics. I remember that the same predictions were made in connexion with the British Parliament when the question of reform was under discussion, </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6371</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Order I </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6371</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WEST, John Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr WEST</name>
</talker>
<para>- It was said that various things would happen if the Reform Bill were passed. These tactics were always resorted to with a view to frighten the people. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6371</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Will the honorable member confine himself to the question ? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6371</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WEST, John Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr WEST</name>
</talker>
<para>- An honorable member opposite tells me that I am miles away from the question. Of course, when an honorable member speaks the truth here it is very hard for other members to sit and hear it. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6371</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Order ! </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6371</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WEST, John Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr WEST</name>
</talker>
<para>- I can quite understand the position on the other side. I hope that when this proposal is put to the people honorable members opposite will not do the same as they did at the last referendum. I understand that I am not allowed to state what took place then, but I believe that statements have been made by some honorable members to whom the people of Australia have been very good in the way of emoluments and positions- </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6371</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Order ! Will the honorable member confine himself to the matter before the House? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6371</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WEST, John Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr WEST</name>
</talker>
<para>- I think that instead of opposing those who bring forward measures they ought- </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6371</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Order ! </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6371</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WEST, John Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr WEST</name>
</talker>
<para>- I regret to think that when we are explaining to the people the object of applying for this power to frame a companies law, honorable members on the other side will not be assisting us to state the true position instead of placing that which is contrary to fact before the country., I feel confident that the grant of this power will do much to improve industries, to cause the wheels of industry to go round much better, to protect the public from the companies which are not doing that which is in their best interest, and also to give companies an opportunity to trade&#39; throughout Australia. It is generally recognised now that no large business can confine its operations to one State, but finds itself compelled to trade beyond the State. All trading corporations are formed with the view of increasing the volume of their business. Sometimes they are formed to reduce the cost of production. I am not one of those who believe that every company is formed with the view of doing an injustice to the community. There are some companies which have been established to reduce the cost of production, and so enable the consumer to have a say as to the price. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6372</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Order ! </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6372</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WEST, John Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr WEST</name>
</talker>
<para>- I think that we should encourage the formation of such companies. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6372</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable member is now going beyond the question. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6372</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WEST, John Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr WEST</name>
</talker>
<para>- Am I ? I shall endeavour to keep within the scope of your ruling, sir. I am satisfied that it was always intended that this Parliament should have the power to deal with corporations. There are other matters on which I should like to say a few words, but the Speaker thinks that I am getting beyond the line of demarcation. That is due to my enthusiasm in trying to put the real position before the House; but, of course, I shall bow to the Speaker&#39;s ruling, as I do at all times. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Willis</inline> would not be so notorious as he is if other persons had followed my example. It is the members of the Liberal party who have made <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Willis</inline> notorious. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6372</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Order ! </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6372</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZA</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">WEST, John Edward</name>
<name role="display">Mr WEST</name>
</talker>
<para>- I think that, of all the proposals put before the House, there is not one on which the people of Australia will be found so unanimous as the one under which we ask for power to frame a Companies Act, so that the commercial life of the community may be based on sound principles, and creditors and other persons may be secured against those institutions which, in many cases, have been established, not for the benefit of the public, but for their own gain. We all know that many of our friends have suffered losses through not having a Companies Act to protect the interests of all parties concerned in the ramifications of industrial life under corporations. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6372</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JZF</name.id>
<electorate>Illawarra</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FULLER, George</name>
<name role="display">Mr FULLER</name>
</talker>
<para>.- There appears to be some difficulty in the minds of some honorable members who have addressed the House as to the real meaning of paragraph <inline font-style="italic">b</inline> of clause 2, which reads - </para>
</talk.start>
<quote>
<para>Corporations formed under the law of the State, including their dissolution, regulation, and control - </para>
</quote>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6372</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I ask the honorable member not to go into details of a clause of the Bill. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6372</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JZF</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FULLER, George</name>
<name role="display">Mr FULLER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am not going into details, sir, but trying to arrive at the correct meaning of the clause, if I possibly can. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6372</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I would point out roche honorable member that that may be done in Committee. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6372</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JZF</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FULLER, George</name>
<name role="display">Mr FULLER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I wish to get a clear idea of what this Bill means. It contains only two clauses, and yet some honorable members experience a difficulty in arriving at its true meaning. This morning, the honorable member for Echuca asked the Honorary Minister, in the absence of the Attorney-General, what position trade unions will occupy under it? That seems to me a very simple question, but it elicited no reply. The Bill will empower the Commonwealth to deal with corporations formed under the law of a State. That is a very far-reaching and dangerous power tovest in the Commonwealth. It is one which will affect not only the big corporations, but the smaller corporations and companies which have been established by primary producers on co-operative lines, in order to improve their position. In <inline font-style="italic">Chambers&#39; Encyclopedia</inline> a corporation is defined as &#34; A body or society authorized by law to&#62; act as one individual.&#34; Under the proposal of the Government, therefore, all ourbutter factories, our co-operative institutions throughout the length and breadth of Australia, which at the present time are subject to State laws, will be brought within the ambit of Commonwealth legislation, and will be dealt by one centralized authority. We all know that in every country to-day the tendency is to get away from centralization, and consequently it seems the acme of absurdity to attempt to deal with all these organizations from one centre, like that pf Melbourne or Yass-Canberra. On behalf of the producers, who have done so much to add to the wealth of Australia, and who will be specially affected by this, proposal, I enter my protest against it. I do not trust the Government which is in power. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6372</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KWL</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">TUDOR, Frank</name>
<name role="display">Mr Tudor</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable membermust think that we are coming back? </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6372</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JZF</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FULLER, George</name>
<name role="display">Mr FULLER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I do not. I feel satisfied that the people of Australia have had quite enough of the Labour party, and that at the next election they will speak in nouncertain voice. From the utterances of&#34; the honorable member for South Sydney and the honorable member for Capricornia, I take it that the institutions to which I have referred, and particularly the dairy farmers of the Commonwealth, will not receive much consideration at the hands of the party opposite if this power be vested in the Commonwealth. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6373</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZG</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ROBERTS, Ernest</name>
<name role="display">Mr Roberts</name>
</talker>
<para>- Specify one of the remarks to which the honorable member refers. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6373</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JZF</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FULLER, George</name>
<name role="display">Mr FULLER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Only the other day, the honorable member for South Sydney stated that it was a scandal that this Parliament had not the power to fix the prices of our dairy products. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6373</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Order ! Will the honorable member confine himself to the question which is before the Chair? </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6373</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JZF</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FULLER, George</name>
<name role="display">Mr FULLER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I shall endeavour to do so, and I regret that I was drawn off the track by an interjection. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6373</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZG</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ROBERTS, Ernest</name>
<name role="display">Mr Roberts</name>
</talker>
<para>- I have caught the honorable member making so many incorrect statements. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6373</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JZF</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FULLER, George</name>
<name role="display">Mr FULLER</name>
</talker>
<para>- That assertion is absolutely without foundation, and, to use the Honorary Minister&#39;s own expression, &#34; he knows it.&#34; </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6373</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZG</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ROBERTS, Ernest</name>
<name role="display">Mr Roberts</name>
</talker>
<para>- I called the honorable member&#39;s attention to his incorrect statements at Mount Gambier, but he refused to qualify them. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6373</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- Order ! I must ask honorable members not to interject, as such conduct only provokes other interjections. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6373</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JZF</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">FULLER, George</name>
<name role="display">Mr FULLER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I wish also to emphasize that the Coal Vend will come within the scope of this Bill. That vend - as has already been pointed out - was created at the instance of the coal miners of Newcastle. It was at their request that the colliery proprietors in that centre entered into a combination for the purpose of raising their wages. We have had Ministers representing that district who have proclaimed that the Vend is a very beneficent institution. No doubt it is. But it cannot ever become a monopoly for the simple reason that the Newcastle field is not the only coal-field in New South Wales. Some eighteen or twenty fields exist in the southern district of Illawarra, and there is also a field at Lithgow. The Vend, therefore, can never become a monopoly, because keen competition exists between the northern, the southern, and the western fields. Consequently there is no necessity for the Vend to be dealt with by Commonwealth legislation. This morning, in answer to ai question by the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister stated that what the Government wanted was one law for the whole Commonwealth, so that the poor man would know that his small investments would be secure. It is not usually suggested that the corporations with which* the Government are so anxious to deal are institutions in which poor men have their savings invested, although the share-list of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company; includes a number of comparatively poor people who are,, to some extent, dependent upon the dividends paid by that company ~ We are all anxious that, in every walk of life, the interests of the poor man shall; be properly protected, but what I should&#62; like to know is how the Government conclude that the poor man&#39;s investments inpublic companies will be better protected* if their operations are controlled by theCommonwealth Parliament than if they are controlled by local Parliaments possessed of a much better knowledge oflocal conditions than this central Parliament can possibly have. In my opinion,, the savings of the poor, and of other persons in the community, can be better secured under State legislation and administration than under Commonwealth*legislation with administration from Melbourne or Yass-Canberra. The acceptance of this proposal might give rise to a peculiar anomaly. If the Commonwealth Parliament is placed in a position to deal with corporations in the way proposed by the Government, we may have two businesses conducted in the same street, one by a corporation, the other by an individual.carried on under the provisions of entirely different laws. The corporation would be carrying on its business under Commonwealth legislation which&#39; would not affect in any way the business carried on by theindividual. When this matter was previously before the House, I made my position perfectly clear, and I have also madeit clear to the electors. Believing, as P do, that the grant of these powers to the Commonwealth Parliament would be injurious, I trust that the people will not/ accept the Government proposals. The Minister of Trade and Customs seems to bevery confident as to his own and his party&#39;s position in connexion with these matters, but I feel equally confident that the peopleof Australia, recognising how dangerous itwould be to vest these powers in a central authority will in the next five or six months give as decided, if not a more decided answer to these questions than that which they gave when they were last submitted to them. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6374</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KNF</name.id>
<electorate>RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>LP; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MASSY-GREENE, Walter</name>
<name role="display">Mr MASSY-GREENE</name>
</talker>
<para>.- I do not wish to take up much time in connexion with this Bill as there are one or two of the other proposed alterations of the Constitution on which I desire to offer a few remarks, but there is one point arising under this Bill which I think I should emphasize. It should always be (remembered that these powers are to be taken from the States. The proposals of the Government do not involve any increase in the total sum of sovereign power exercised by the different Legislatures of Australia, but rather a change of venue of the exercise of particular powers from one Parliament to another. In the circumstances, any change of the kind proposed should be amply justified by reasons given to this House and the country. This particular Bill exemplifies what I may term a desire to grab the greatest amount of power possible for this Parliament, without any definite reasons being given, and I venture to say without the existence of any such reasons. What we have to guard against more than anything else is the asking of power for its own sake. The tendency amongst men is always to secure as much power as they can. I confess that at times I feel the difficulty of this Parliament being unable to do certain things owing to the limitation of its powers. Honorable members opposite ask over and over again, &#34; Can we not trust the Federal Parliament with this power? &#34; It is not a question of trusting this Parliament. We can always trust it to do its best according to its lights, in the interests of the country. It is a question of the wisdom of investing this Parliament with any particular power. We have to ask ourselves, &#34; Can this Parliament exercise the power asked for better than can the State Parliaments?&#34; We should not forget that once a power is granted to this Parliament, and is exercised, our legislation overrides that of the State Parliaments. It has been said that the grant of power asked for on the last occasion did not include the power to deal with municipal corporations, but we have it on the authority of eminent constitutional lawyers in Australia that it did, and, in my opinion, they took up a very logical ground. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6374</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZG</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ROBERTS, Ernest</name>
<name role="display">Mr Roberts</name>
</talker>
<para>- If the honorable member refers to <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Mitchell,</inline> he did not sustain his contention as regards municipal corporations. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6374</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KFK</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">GROOM, Littleton</name>
<name role="display">Mr Groom</name>
</talker>
<para>-Yes, he did. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6374</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KNF</name.id>
<electorate>RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>LP; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MASSY-GREENE, Walter</name>
<name role="display">Mr MASSY-GREENE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I know that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Mitchell</inline> gave it as his strong opinion that the last measure did ask for that power.. It shows the danger of granting unconditional powers to this Parliament. Once they are given in such terms, they are inclusive of everything coming within them. I do not regard the Constitution as sacrosanct in any way. I quite recognise that as we continue under a Federal form of government circumstances will arise proving the necessity for giving this Parliament additional powers. The necessities of the case at the present time show conclusively that this Parliament has not the power to pass a general companies law in regard to the creation, dissolution and winding up of companies in Australia. That has been proved. I am willing and ready to vote in this House for, and to advocate in the country afterwards, the granting of that power to this Parliament. If this Bill had been so limited, it would have had my vote in this House, and my support in the country. There are other proposals in these measures to which I partly agree, because I think we have had proved the necessity for the granting of certain additional powers to the Federal Parliament. When, however, the Government propose to go beyond the proved necessities of the case, then I think they are asking for power for its own sake, and not to advantage the community. I think that they are asking for this power, not because this Parliament can exercise it better than can the States, but simply because the Attorney-General is desirous of so clothing this Legislature with authority that whatever legislation it passes in regard, to corporations, whether it be for the benefit of Australia or not, cannot be vetoed by the High Court. He desires that this Parliament shall take so wide a power that it will be able to pass any law that it pleases in regard to almost any subject touching corporations, and that that law shall not be subject to the veto of the High Court. That is a very nice position for the Parliament itself to occupy ; but, from the point of view of the Australian public, I doubt whether it is wise. The question at issue is not whether this Parliament is to be trusted but whether, in the division of sovereign rights between the Commonwealth Parliament and the State Parliaments, it is wise to give to this Legislature such wide and far-reaching authority as the Government propose. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<para class="block">The honorable member for Flinders and others have dealt so fully with the confusion that must necessarily arise if this Parliament exercises the powers proposed to be taken in regard to the regulation and control of corporations that I do not think I need make any further reference to it. What we unquestionably need is the power to pass a general companies law. As honorable members are aware, a law relating to the creation, dissolution, or winding up of companies does not cover their operations in any way. It has regard only to their creation and dissolution as legal entities under the companies law. It goes no further, and that is all that is necessary from a commercial stand-point. If we attempt, through this Parliament, to build up a whole code of laws under which companies may trade and conduct their business - laws which are bound to conflict with some of the laws of the States - we shall not only create endless confusion, but override those State laws. We would practically have an automatic power of veto over the whole range of State law in this regard. That, whatever else it is, is certainly not in accordance with the scheme or ideal of a Federal system of government. As <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Justice</inline> Higgins once pointed out, the proposal is big with confusion. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Mitchell</inline> described it as a bastard form of government, which would mean neither a Federal nor a Unitary system. It was an attempt; he said, to graft on to the Federal form of government a Unitary system, with all its consequent confusion. If this Parliament obtained and exercised the powers that are now being sought, it would not be long before the people, owing to the confusion that would arise, would cry out for relief, and would accept a Unitary system of government as the easiest way out of the difficulty. For statesmen, as honorable members opposite are supposed to be - whatever the Opposition are- </para>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6375</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I ask the honorable member to confine his attention to the question before the Chair. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6375</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KNF</name.id>
<electorate>RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>LP; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MASSY-GREENE, Walter</name>
<name role="display">Mr MASSY-GREENE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I do no* intend to do otherwise. I think I am entitled to address myself to the advisableness of altering the Constitution in the direction proposed by this Bill. For statesmen to attempt to so mix up two vitally different principles of government - to attempt to graft one on tothe other- </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6375</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable member is now going beyond the matter before the Chair. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6375</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KNF</name.id>
<electorate>RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>LP; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MASSY-GREENE, Walter</name>
<name role="display">Mr MASSY-GREENE</name>
</talker>
<para>- Since this Bill provides for an amendment of one of theparagraphs of section 51 of the Constitution, am I not in order in referring to theprinciples on which constitutions are framed? I take it that the scope of thisBill, so far as it proposes an amendment of the Constitution, is as wide as any of the other Bills dealing with proposed* amendments. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6375</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- The honorable member is quite wrong. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6375</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KNF</name.id>
<electorate>RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>LP; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MASSY-GREENE, Walter</name>
<name role="display">Mr MASSY-GREENE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I fail to see how that can be. The titles of these Bills are practically the same - they are all Bills toalter section 51 of the Constitution. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6375</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- That will not justify the honorable member in discussing at thisstage anything beyond the principles of the Bill now under consideration. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6375</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KNF</name.id>
<electorate>RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>LP; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MASSY-GREENE, Walter</name>
<name role="display">Mr MASSY-GREENE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I do not propose to doanything more than that; but I do claim, from you, sir, the right to discuss this Bill, in relation to the Constitution. The AttorneyGeneral, in moving that it be read&#39; a second time, was permitted, not only todeal with the subject with which I am attempting to deal, but to enter upon a long, discussion on trusts and combines. I presume that a similar courtesy will be extended to me. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6375</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>10000</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">SPEAKER, Mr</name>
<name role="display">Mr SPEAKER</name>
</talker>
<para>- I do not wish to extend to any honorable member any courtesy or latitude beyond that which is hisright. As the honorable member is aware, when these several Bills to amend the Constitution were introduced, I said that I should allow the widest possible discussion, on the first, but that after that had been disposed of I should confine honorablemembers strictly to the subject-matter of the particular Bill before the House. Tha*} was the general understanding, and I desire the honorable member to conform to it. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6375</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KNF</name.id>
<electorate>RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>LP; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MASSY-GREENE, Walter</name>
<name role="display">Mr MASSY-GREENE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I am endeavouring to do so. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6375</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JM8</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ARCHIBALD, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr Archibald</name>
</talker>
<para>- No; the honorablemember is discussing the Constitution; he might just as well discuss butter. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6376</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KNF</name.id>
<electorate>RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>LP; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MASSY-GREENE, Walter</name>
<name role="display">Mr MASSY-GREENE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I would if the honorable member would listen to me, but he listens to no one but himself. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6376</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KZG</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ROBERTS, Ernest</name>
<name role="display">Mr Roberts</name>
</talker>
<para>- That is not so. The honorable member for Hindmarsh is most regular in his attendance. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6376</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>KNF</name.id>
<electorate>RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
<party>LP; NAT from 1917</party>
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">MASSY-GREENE, Walter</name>
<name role="display">Mr MASSY-GREENE</name>
</talker>
<para>- I did not suggest that he was not. However, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr. Speaker,</inline> as you rule that I may not discuss the Constitution I shall not attempt to do so. I have practically covered the ground that I wished to traverse on this particular measure, and do not feel disposed, under the circumstances, to discuss it at further length. I feel that the method adopted by the Government in limiting the debate as they have done has prevented honorable members from dealing with important aspects of the subject as they should have been dealt with. I am very sorry that that course should have been adopted, because there appears to me to be no option but to leave undiscussed certain matters of very great importance, in my opinion, however unimportant my opinion may be in regard to them. </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6376</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JPC</name.id>
<electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BEST, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Sir ROBERT BEST</name>
</talker>
<para>. - The Attorney-General, in urging why this Bill in regard to corporations should be passed, stated, among other reasons - what is a recognised fact - that trade and commerce at the present time is largely carried on by trading companies or corporations. I not only agree with the Attorney-General in that respect, but I realize that the preponderance of trade and commerce is nowadays carried on in that particular way. He urged that for that reason the Federal Government should have the most complete control in the regulation of corporations. Trading corporations are so well recognised at the present time, and have grown so popular, that there is no doubt that they not only invite, but demand, the attention of this and other Parliaments. A most comprehensive measure was passed by the Imperial Parliament in 1908. I refer to the Companies Act. Legislation based upon that Act has also been passed by the Parliaments of several of the Australian States. In Victoria, it was passed with certain additions, and some rigid provisions in certain respects were inserted. Two classes of companies are commonly known to commerce, and will be very seriously affected by this measure. One is that which is known as the proprietary or private company. Within the last few years it has become a practice of leading firms to carry on their business by means of proprietary companies. A proprietary company is the same as a private company under the English law. Two men can create a company. It is a very justifiable and convenient course to resort to. It permits the division of a business into shares. For family reasons it is a useful method of dividing up interests. It also has the advantage that there is a limited liability. </para>
</talk.start>
<interjection>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6376</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JM8</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">ARCHIBALD, William</name>
<name role="display">Mr Archibald</name>
</talker>
<para>- It has also the advantage that shares can be deposited with a bank. </para>
</talk.start>
</interjection>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6376</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JPC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BEST, Robert</name>
<name role="display">Sir ROBERT BEST</name>
</talker>
<para>- Exactly so. The formation of such companies is a legitimate course to follow. Therefore, in dealing with corporations we are dealing with an important element in our daily life. It behoves us, for this reason, to offer the utmost facilities for companies to carry on their business. In addition to proprietary companies, there are public companies, in which the public are more or less interested. It is in connexion with such companies that efforts are being made by legislation to secure the utmost protection to the public. The AttorneyGeneral made a statement which, I think, is hardly borne out by the law as it stands. He said that it was practically impossible in Australia to obtain any information in regard to companies. My honorable friend was greatly in error in that regard. In regard even to private companies, full publicity is demanded by the terms of the law. The Victorian Companies Act of 1 9 10 makes provision as to what shall be done by all companies, including private companies. It is necessary that every company having a share capital shall, once at least in every year, make a list of all persons who, at the date of the first, or of the only ordinary general meeting in the year, are members of the company, and of persons who have ceased to be members since the date of the last meeting ; or, in the case of a first return, since the incorporation of a company. Further particulars are also required by the law to be given. I may enumerate what they are - </para>
</talk.start>
</continue>
<list type="loweralpha">
<item label="(a)">
<para>The amount of the share capital of the company, and the number of the shares into which it is divided ; </para>
</item>
<item label="(i)">
<para>The number of shares taken from the commencement of the company up to the date of the return; </para>
</item>
<item label="(c)">
<para>The amount called up on each share; </para>
</item>
<item label="(d)">
<para>The total amount of calls received, inclusive of application and allotment moneys; </para>
</item>
<item label="(e)">
<para>The total amount of calls unpaid; (/) The total amount of the sums (if any) paid by way of commission in respect of any shares or debentures, or allowed by way of discount in respect of any debentures since the date of the last return; </para>
</item>
<item label="(g)">
<para>The total number of shares forfeited ; </para>
</item>
<item label="(h)">
<para>The total amount of shares or stock for which share warrants are outstanding at the date of the return ; </para>
</item>
<item label="(i)">
<para>The total amount of share warrants issued and surrendered respectively since the date of the last return ; </para>
</item>
<item label="(k)">
<para>The number of shares or amount of stock comprised in each share warrant; </para>
<list type="upperalpha">
<item label="(I)">
<para>The names and addresses of the persons who, at the date of the return, are the directors of the company, or occupy the position of directors by whatever named called; and </para>
</item>
</list>
</item>
<item label="(m)">
<para>The total amount of debts due from the company in respect of all mortgages and charges which are required to be registered by the Registrar-General under this Act, or which would have been required so to be registered if created after the twenty-fourth day of December, One thousand eight hundred and ninety-six. </para>
</item>
</list>
<para class="block">Any company which fails in these respects is liable to considerable fines. It is quite true that proprietary companies are not compelled to file balance-sheets for public inspection. There is really no reason why they should be. None of us is compelled to file a balance-sheet in regard to our private affairs. Proprietary companies are really private companies, and there is no reason why they should be required to disclose their private balance-sheets. But where the public is interested, and is invited to take shares good faith is a vital factor, and the law requires full publicity. The utmost precaution is taken. I was a member of a State Government which introduced, I suppose, the most rigid and stringent company law which has ever been in force in Australia, and many of the features of which are now being adopted elsewhere. I am now dealing with the contention of the Attorney-General that, under the present law, sufficient information is not given to the public, and that, therefore, it is necessary that the proposed powers should be given to the Commonwealth Parliament. So far as public companies are concerned, it is provided, by section 115 of the Victorian Act - </para>
<list type="decimal">
<item label="(2)">
<para>Every company, and the directors and manager thereof - </para>
<list type="loweralpha">
<item label="(a)">
<para>shall cause to be kept proper books of account, in which shall be kept full, true, and complete accounts of the affairs and transactions of the company; and </para>
</item>
<item label="(i)">
<para>shall once at least in each year, and at intervals of not more than fifteen months, cause the accounts of the company to be balanced, and a balance-sheet to be prepared, which balance-sheet, after being duly audited, shall be laid before the members of the company in general meeting ; and </para>
</item>
<item label="(c)">
<para>shall cause a copy of such balance-sheet so audited to be sent to the registered address of every member of the company at least seven days before the meeting. . . . </para>
</item>
<item label="(d)">
<para>shall forthwith cause to be filed with the Registrar-General a copy of such balancesheet, and of any auditor&#39;s report attached thereto or thereon referred&#34; to; and </para>
</item>
<item label="(e)">
<para>shall cause to be forthwith posted up, and until the posting up of the next following balance-sheet, kept posted&#34; up, a printed copy of the same in a conspicuous place in the registerd office of the company, and in every branch office where the business of the company is carried on, and every creditor of or shareholder in the company, or any person acting in his behalf, shall be entitled to a copy thereof on payment of Sixpence. </para>
</item>
</list>
</item>
<item label="(3)">
<para>The balance-sheet shall be audited by the company&#39;s auditors as hereinafter provided, and shall contain a summary of the share capital of the company, its liabilities, and its assets, giving such particulars as will disclose the general nature of those liabilities and assets, and the balance-sheet shall include a statement of profit and loss. </para>
</item>
</list>
<para>The balance-sheet may, in the case of a banking company, and shall in the case of any other company, be in one of the forms in the Second Schedule to this Act, or to the like effect, and comply with the directions (if any) at the foot of the form. </para>
<para class="block">Not only are the requirements very stringent in regard to public companies, so far as the disclosures to be made are concerned, but in the schedules, which I need not quote now, further information is provided for. The Attorney-General, I think, quite overlooked the public requirements made by the laws of the several States in this regard ; and it is not necessary to clothe the Commonwealth Parliament in order to get more complete information than that already obtainable. </para>
<para class="italic">
<inline font-style="italic">Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 3p.m.</inline>
</para>
<continue>
<talk.start>
<talker>
<page.no>6377</page.no>
<time.stamp />
<name.id>JPC</name.id>
<electorate />
<party />
<role />
<in.gov>0</in.gov>
<first.speech>0</first.speech>
<name role="metadata">BEST, Robert</name>
<name role=